PDA

View Full Version : *Official* 4/4 "What a Silly Bunt" Postgame Thread


PeteWard
04-03-2011, 02:34 PM
That TP just took all the air out of the O.

aryzner
04-03-2011, 02:34 PM
Alexei should not have been bunting.

Ohman should not have been pitching.

You can't win 'em all?

PeteWard
04-03-2011, 02:35 PM
Take 2 in KC and I will be happy.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
04-03-2011, 02:37 PM
Sigh. Yeah, you're not going to win 'em all.

But our bullpen is VERY unimpressive so far. Ohman needs to be DFA'ed.

ShooterMcGavin
04-03-2011, 02:38 PM
Danks pitched well; Ohman did not. That's two consecutive poor showings by Ohman.

Vizquel had two hits.

The Ramirez bunt popup into a triple play was crushing.

LongLiveFisk
04-03-2011, 02:38 PM
There was plenty of baseball to be played after the triple play, but the team did seem to fall asleep afterwards. Like all the momentum went to Cleveland.

All you can do is regroup and hopefully win a couple of games in KC.

EDIT: By the way, today is 4/3. ;)

JermaineDye05
04-03-2011, 02:38 PM
We took the series and no one got hurt. I'm fine with that.

I don't think we necessarily gave this game away. Masterson was pitching pretty well and just outmatched Danks by the end. The triple play did seem to take the momentum out of the team though. But hey, these games happen. 159 more to go. Then, hopefully 11 more.

PeteWard
04-03-2011, 02:38 PM
Yes the bullpen has not shown much so far.

TheOldRoman
04-03-2011, 02:39 PM
Boy, I'll tell you what, that Justin Masterson just dominated. You gotta watch out for him. One of these years he will put it all together and have a WHIP under 1.4.

Foulke You
04-03-2011, 02:39 PM
I like Ozzie...but how many times does he have to see Alexei fail at bunting to realize that he is a terrible bunter? He used to do the same thing with Uribe. American League silver slugger winner Alexei Ramirez up with runners on and nobody out. No need to bunt there. It was the turning point in the game, no question.

manders_01
04-03-2011, 02:39 PM
Argh! Was looking forward to starting the season with a series sweep. If nothing else, Danks looked awesome! Back to putting up massive offense on Tuesday!

Chicken Dinner
04-03-2011, 02:40 PM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=2005&t=CHA

JermaineDye05
04-03-2011, 02:40 PM
Sigh. Yeah, you're not going to win 'em all.

But our bullpen is VERY unimpressive so far. Ohman needs to be DFA'ed.

I still say it's too soon. It's been one series. Let's see how the bullpen looks when this team gets back to Chicago.

I still am far more excited about this team than I have about past White Sox teams. I think the last time I was this excited for a team early in the season was 2006, and 2005 before that.

sox230
04-03-2011, 02:40 PM
I did not agree with ONE move Ozzie made today. The bunting MUST stop so early in games. The last two games we have had bunts absolutely ruin rallies. And you know who were the on-deck hitters in those situations? Juan Pierre and Omar Vizquel!! Not exactly your sacrifice fly candidates. Bringing in Ohman was raising a white flag. And then Thornton just to ruin his confidence? I guess our streak of never completing sweeps will continue. :angry:

PeteWard
04-03-2011, 02:40 PM
Good to see Vizquel step in and hit immediately.

manders_01
04-03-2011, 02:41 PM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=2005&t=CHA

I like where you're going with that! :thumbsup:

thomas35forever
04-03-2011, 02:41 PM
Let's hope the offense doesn't go into shutdown mode every time something like a triple play happens. More importantly though, let's hope the bullpen gets its act together.

ChiSoxGal85
04-03-2011, 02:44 PM
I thought that triple play really swung the momentum toward the Indians.

Ohman scares me. Whenever I see him come in, I feel like I did last year when Linebrink came in.

Danks looked good - just one little mistake gives him the loss. Sox just didn't give him any offense to support him.

Oh well, you can't win them all.

Gavin
04-03-2011, 02:46 PM
We took the series and no one got hurt. I'm fine with that.


Is this really a positive approach to a 162-game season?

JermaineDye05
04-03-2011, 02:46 PM
Is this really a positive approach to a 162-game season?

In the first three games? Yes.

Foulke You
04-03-2011, 02:48 PM
Ohman scares me. Whenever I see him come in, I feel like I did last year when Linebrink came in.
So far, I would agree with you but it has been a small sample size. I just wish Ozzie would only let him face the 1 or 2 lefty hitters like he was meant to and then pull him.

cheezheadsoxfan
04-03-2011, 02:48 PM
Time for the first hysterical calls to Rongey. Take 2 in KC.

Harry Potter
04-03-2011, 02:48 PM
And then Thornton just to ruin his confidence?

Thornton was going to pitch today regardless

thomas35forever
04-03-2011, 02:50 PM
Is this really a positive approach to a 162-game season?
I knew posts like this would come up if we lost today. Maybe I'm just one to think sweeps are greedy and not usually attainable.

Frater Perdurabo
04-03-2011, 02:50 PM
Didn't get to watch it, and glad for it. Just another Sunday letdown.

I like the bunt when it is appropriate. I didn't see the situation to judge whether or not it was appropriate, so I cannot comment on Ozzie's judgment. But Alexei should be able to get down a bunt when called on to do so. The bunt is the equivalent of the free throw in basketball. If I were Ozzie, I would have Alexei practice bunting for an hour tomorrow.

Winning series is nice. Winning games is better.

DrCrawdad
04-03-2011, 02:53 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQroxx67ZA_BN0KdkApweGZ-Fkh_IMaYYdHxR86MJeijWzHjrhP

Foulke You
04-03-2011, 02:57 PM
I like the bunt when it is appropriate. I didn't see the situation to judge whether or not it was appropriate, so I cannot comment on Ozzie's judgment. But Alexei should be able to get down a bunt when called on to do so. The bunt is the equivalent of the free throw in basketball. If I were Ozzie, I would have Alexei practice bunting for an hour tomorrow.
Alexei stabbed at it twice rather than letting the ball just hit the bat like you're supposed to. He always tries to bunt this way which is why he is terrible at it. First attempt popped it up and was almost caught. Infielders took a further step in because I'm sure it is in the scouting report that Ozzie never takes the bunt sign off. Second time, Alexei pops it to the same spot and the 1B catches it and turns a triple play.

thomas35forever
04-03-2011, 02:57 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQroxx67ZA_BN0KdkApweGZ-Fkh_IMaYYdHxR86MJeijWzHjrhP
And:
http://cdn.sportsoverdose.com/thumbs/mike-macdougal-48-mlb.jpg

Thome_Fan
04-03-2011, 03:13 PM
If nothing else, we got an amazing web gem out of Bacon today.

tstrike2000
04-03-2011, 03:13 PM
For the second time in 3 days, still lovin' me some Will Ohman.

soxnut1018
04-03-2011, 03:14 PM
Well that sucked. Still, any time you win a series while the Twins lose theirs, it's not all bad.

TomBradley72
04-03-2011, 03:19 PM
Didn't like the strategy to bunt- especially with TCM at bat, even less after his 1st mediocre attempt.

Ohman is a 6th/7th inning LOOGY AT BEST- Ozzie has to stop using him as a straight reliever. Between Ohman, Pena and Humber- 3 pretty shakey arms out of 11.

Crooked Number
04-03-2011, 03:21 PM
Danks looked really good today. Got the ball up once to a good mistake hitter and got burned. Sox had a bunch of chances to break this one open but it didnt happen, which will happen throughout the course of a season.

Tough one to let slip away, but man these Indians can hit (surprisingly) well. Once the Size comes back they are going to be pesky.

My kneejerk reaction to Ohman was: "Ive seen ENOUGH of this guy already, Linebrink 2.0! ". However it was only his second appereance, like a previous poster said its been a small sample size. Let's give him a few more shots. Good to see Humber get a shot, that call i actually liked from Ozzie.

Anxious to see what the offense will do the next few games after such a monster start. I really like this team. Work out the kinks, it's early.

Zakath
04-03-2011, 03:26 PM
Well, that's one of the 60 even great teams lose.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

chisoxfanatic
04-03-2011, 03:33 PM
I think someone needs to create an "Oh, Man!" tag.

Lip Man 1
04-03-2011, 03:35 PM
Can't win them all, at least they took the series. Split in KC and you have a winning road trip to start the season.

Disappointed in leaving so many runners on base, the Ramirez poor bunt attempt (agree with the posters who said he should never be asked to bunt, he's not good at it...) and the bullpen imploding again.

I'll give Ohman the benefit of the doubt he's got a little bit of a successful track record against left handers.

As far as Humber, well let's just say that I hope Jake Peavy returns soon.

Lip

Saufley
04-03-2011, 03:48 PM
it's Ok for him to bunt, if he only knew how. Pathetic attempt.

Ohman is our lefthanded Linebrink

Nelfox02
04-03-2011, 04:07 PM
well, as a whole the opening series went better than I expected....so hard to draw any conclusions positive or negative this early in the year. There were some real positives (starting pitching was solid, Quentin and Beckham, Dunn swung the bat well) so negatives (Rios looked pretty lost in most at bats, Ohman) but a series win on the road not a bad start.

grab at least a split with KC and come home with a winning trip and its hard to get too down.

count me as terrified of Humber's upcoming start......

guillensdisciple
04-03-2011, 04:08 PM
Eh. :cool:

LongLiveFisk
04-03-2011, 04:28 PM
They said on the Score that this was the first time the Sox hit into a triple play since 1978. Let's hope we don't see another one of these for at least another 33 years!

(Ironically, that was the year I attended my first Sox game as a wee child. I am glad it didn't happen in the one I was at. :tongue:)

Tragg
04-03-2011, 04:36 PM
It simply cannot be overstated about what a piss poor decision that bunt call is. If that's quality of decision-making that Guillen will offer this year, we need to be 5-10 games better on the field to overcome his clownning.

thomas35forever
04-03-2011, 04:41 PM
It simply cannot be overstated about what a piss poor decision that bunt call is. If that's quality of decision-making that Guillen will offer this year, we need to be 5-10 games better on the field to overcome his clownning.
And finally, the anti-Ozzie crowd has reason to come out.

Jurr
04-03-2011, 04:42 PM
The bunt looks like a good call if executed properly.
Always give a pitcher and defense something else to worry about.

The Pirates asked Lyle frigging Overbay to bunt with runners on today.
He executed, despite being a historically bad bunter. They won as a result.
If he didn't execute, people would wonder why the bat was taken out of his hands.

Regardless, decent series. We will take 2-1 all year long.
This middle relief situation has to improve.

TheVulture
04-03-2011, 04:42 PM
Yes the bullpen has not shown much so far.

The bottom of the bullpen looks bad, but I see no reason to worry about Thornton, Sale, Santos and Crain at this point. Ohman is a 3rd lefty, hopefully he's on a very short leash. Pena has shown he has some value in long relief situations and Humber is up to fill in for Peavy. Hopefully we can come up with another arm to fill out the pen as there's no reason to think, IMO, that Ohman is going to help us at all.

TheOldRoman
04-03-2011, 04:44 PM
It simply cannot be overstated about what a piss poor decision that bunt call is. If that's quality of decision-making that Guillen will offer this year, we need to be 5-10 games better on the field to overcome his clownning.Sure it can be, and you just did it. It was a bad call, and I was angry when he called for an early inning bunt yesterday (Morel, I think) after the first three hitter got on that inning. Situations dictate when to bunt and not, and I don't think Ozzie should have had them bunt either time. However, Ozzie didn't tell Alexei, a major league baseball player in his fourth season, to take two horrible bunt attempts and pop into a triple play. It was a bad call and worse execution. Ultimately, the Sox lost this game because Danks didn't do what he needed to, the bullpen was horrible, and the offense took the day off. Ozzie's call didn't cost us the game.

manders_01
04-03-2011, 04:47 PM
Sure it can be, and you just did it. It was a bad call, and I was angry when he called for an early inning bunt yesterday (Morel, I think) after the first three hitter got on that inning. Situations dictate when to bunt and not, and I don't think Ozzie should have had them bunt either time. However, Ozzie didn't tell Alexei, a major league baseball player in his fourth season, to take two horrible bunt attempts and pop into a triple play. It was a bad call and worse execution. Ultimately, the Sox lost this game because Danks didn't do what he needed to, the bullpen was horrible, and the offense took the day off. Ozzie's call didn't cost us the game.

:?: One pitch missed that he unfortunately paid for. I would hardly say that his solid performance with 8 Ks cost us the game.

TheVulture
04-03-2011, 04:48 PM
. And then Thornton just to ruin his confidence?

Thornton is a 34 year old vet. If this outing had any effect on his confidence, he has no business being the closer in the first place.

hi im skot
04-03-2011, 04:52 PM
Ultimately, the Sox lost this game because Danks didn't do what he needed to, the bullpen was horrible, and the offense took the day off. Ozzie's call didn't cost us the game.

:?: One pitch missed that he unfortunately paid for. I would hardly say that his solid performance with 8 Ks cost us the game.

Exactly. If I can get a performance like that every night, I'll see you guys at the parade in October.

canOcorn
04-03-2011, 04:53 PM
For the second time in 3 days, still lovin' me some Will Ohman.

Bad Omen.

I was slightly concerned when he was allowed to face a RH hitter in the Opener, but gave it a pass since it was such a huge lead. Now red flags are waving wildly since he was allowed to face a righty in a meaningful situation. He is in the dictionary as a LOOGY and should never, ever be allowed to face a RH hitter in a game that isn't all but over.

And I really don't blame Alexei for not being able to get a sac bunt down anymore (well, he really should take more pride and fix this, but.....). Ozzie doesn't make him improve and yet continues to ask him to do something he can't. Either make Alexei fix this or quit ****ing asking him to do something he can't!

TheOldRoman
04-03-2011, 04:59 PM
:?: One pitch missed that he unfortunately paid for. I would hardly say that his solid performance with 8 Ks cost us the game.

Exactly. If I can get a performance like that every night, I'll see you guys at the parade in October.
I don't think Danks had a bad game, but he labored too much. Yes, he only made the one bad pitch and gave up two runs (ERA of 3.00), but we need him to be an ace. Once again, this is supposed to be the year he steps into the elite category. We need Danks to take the team deeper into games, routinely pitching into the 7th and 8th. When I said he didn't do what he needed, I meant he needs to get past the 6th inning without throwing 100 pitches. He still should have won this game, but it wasn't like he was lights out.

TheVulture
04-03-2011, 05:13 PM
We need Danks to take the team deeper into games, routinely pitching into the 7th and 8th. When I said he didn't do what he needed, I meant he needs to get past the 6th inning without throwing 100 pitches. He still should have won this game, but it wasn't like he was lights out.

Historically, how often to starters pitch deep into games the first couple of weeks of the season? I'd think not very. Usually, they get a couple starts in before going deeper into games.

I agree, though, the Sox need to get 7+ most of the time for the team to be highly successful. The bottom of the bullpen looks too weak for the bullpen to go 3 or 4 innings a game on a regular basis. At the same time, you don't want to push the starters too much in April. Hopefully one of the suspects in the pen steps up and maybe we can find another arm somewhere.

hi im skot
04-03-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't think Danks had a bad game, but he labored too much. Yes, he only made the one bad pitch and gave up two runs (ERA of 3.00), but we need him to be an ace. Once again, this is supposed to be the year he steps into the elite category. We need Danks to take the team deeper into games, routinely pitching into the 7th and 8th. When I said he didn't do what he needed, I meant he needs to get past the 6th inning without throwing 100 pitches. He still should have won this game, but it wasn't like he was lights out.

He's John Danks, not Roy Halladay.

soltrain21
04-03-2011, 05:39 PM
You don't ask your Silver Slugger SS who sucks at bunting to set the table for Juan Pierre.

WhiteSox5187
04-03-2011, 05:51 PM
I didn't mind the idea of bunting as that actually would have been an appropriate time to do so as the next two guys coming up were likely to make contact and I doubt the Indians would have brought the infield in, but for some reason Alexei can not lay down a sac bunt, he can bunt for a hit, but he can't lay down a sacrifice and I have no idea of why that is. As Frater said, everyone should be able to bunt. It's the equivalent of a free throw in basketball.

I don't mind Thornton's bad outing, but I am getting pretty sick of Will Ohman and it is only two games in. People making the Linebrink comparison are way off base however, in his first two seasons with us Linebrink was lights out in the first half and then got hurt in the second.

October26
04-03-2011, 06:01 PM
I thought that triple play really swung the momentum toward the Indians.

Ohman scares me. Whenever I see him come in, I feel like I did last year when Linebrink came in.

Danks looked good - just one little mistake gives him the loss. Sox just didn't give him any offense to support him.

Oh well, you can't win them all.

I agree with you on all of your points especially that so far Ohman=Linebrink from last year and that John Danks didn't get enough run support today. I'll add that it's great to have White sox baseball back, it was 67 degrees in Chicago today (April 3rd) and I am enjoying what is left of my weekend.

I would have liked to have seen the Sox sweep this opening series but I'll take 2 outta 3.

russ99
04-03-2011, 06:23 PM
Can't win them all.

I'm much more concerned with the pen than with any issues concerned with the bunt.

Perfect call and not the best execution considering these guys worked on bunting a few weeks ago. Besides, their 1B made a great play.

Hopefully we can see someone step up in the pen other than our closer and two setup guys or make cuts and bring back Bruney and Infante or someone else if they can't hack it.

Irishsox1
04-03-2011, 06:52 PM
The bullpen and closer were my biggest concerns before the year and they still are. Very early but right now I still have little faith in the bullpens ability to hold a close lead.

Domeshot17
04-03-2011, 07:14 PM
Offense and Ozzie lost this game. Bunt was a terrible call, terrible use of the pen. Ozzie is a great motivator, but Bobby Jenks was right, he has no clue who to use ever in the pen.

That said, 2 of 3 every series makes the playoffs, lets keep it up.

TDog
04-03-2011, 07:19 PM
I wouldn't have bunted Ramirez with two on and none out, and certainly it was worst-case-scenario execution, but it wasn't a horrible managerial move.

The reason everyone on defense expected Ramirez to sacrifice before the first pitch was that it was what most major league managers would have called in that situation. Take into consideration that Ramirez matched up so poorly against Masterson and Vizquel on deck handles the bat as well as anyone on the team and would have had a great shot at scoring the runner from third, bunting in that situation is actually seems the aggressive move. Masterson wasn't striking people out. He was getting people to ground out. Even with his speed, Ramirez swinging away easily could have grounded into a doubleplay. There was a strong argument to be made for sacrificing there before Ramirez failed to execute.

Under almost all circumstances, I wouldn't sacrifice with a position player with runners on first and second, not because of the triple play threat, although I saw something very similar happen to the White Sox in the 1970s. I think Bill Stein was hitting. (I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't have access to Chicago media, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive, but I seem to remember Stein popping out to Glenn Borgmann, the Twins catcher.) For one thing, you already have a runner in scoring postion. For another, with two baserunners who could potentially be forced out, there is more that can go wrong on the bases. It is more often that you end up with runners at first and second and first and third than with runners on second and third.

The triple play didn't cost the White Sox the game. Danks trying to sneak a first strike against Orlando Cabrera cost the White Sox the game. The White Sox didn't score only one run because they lack killer instinct and gave up after the triple play. Theyonly scored one run because Masterson, unlike the sinker-baller the White Sox beat up on opening day, was hitting his spots and had great command.

Danks deserved the loss. It was a tough loss when you consider that he pitched on the only day the Sox didn't seem to be able to score at will against the Indians starter, certainly, but he had the lead with two outs and none on in the sixth and two hitters later, he lost it. If your starters are only going to go six innings, your bullpen is going to get a lot of work, and the early overwork by Santos and Thornton last year led to both being shut down late in the season and probably losses in August when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the White Sox offense.

Brian26
04-03-2011, 08:26 PM
I don't think Danks had a bad game, but he labored too much.

This game was lost because our offense struggled against Masterson, but Danks absolutely gets too much credit for today's outing.

You can't have your starting pitcher throw 100 pitches through 5+ innings and expect him to be effective on a consistent basis. This is a case where the strikeout number is deceiving. Danks was 2-2 or 3-2 with too many hitters. Indians were seeing too many pitches from him.

Also, I take away points for giving that ****er Orlando Cabrera a pitch to hit out of the park. The Sox should know how to pitch him, inside and out.

Lip Man 1
04-03-2011, 08:33 PM
Ramirez does not like to bunt in the first place I was told tonight and when he is asked to do so, he tries but his heart isn't in it and it shows in the results.

Agree with the poster who said Ozzie should know this and not put him in that situation (although I can also see the point of view that Ozzie's the manager and players should be able to do what he asks...)

Regarding the issue of the Sox being able to bunt when they need to, (Ozzie talked about that in the on line stories after the game,) perhaps part of the problem is that it's coach Jeff Cox throwing during bunting practice and not someone even close to major league speed.

Lip

TDog
04-03-2011, 09:59 PM
Ramirez does not like to bunt in the first place I was told tonight and when he is asked to do so, he tries but his heart isn't in it and it shows in the results.

Agree with the poster who said Ozzie should know this and not put him in that situation (although I can also see the point of view that Ozzie's the manager and players should be able to do what he asks...)

Regarding the issue of the Sox being able top bunt when they need to, (Ozzie talked about that in the on line stories after the game,) perhaps part of the problem is that it's coach Jeff Cox throwing during bunting practice and not someone even close to major league speed.

Lip

I thought Ramirez's bunting had improved in 2009. And I see he had 13 plate appearances and picked up 3 hits and 6 sacrifices. I'm guessing at least 1 or 2 of the hits were probably intended sacrifices. Last year, he had 17 bunts and picked up 5 hits and 7 sacrifices. That doesn't include appearances where the bunt has been taken off with 1 or 2 strikes, but it isn't like asking Ramirez to bunt is asking him to do something he can't do.

The Sox couldn't do anything with Masterson, and they were mostly grounding out routinely. They needed to stay out of the double play to extend the lead. Guillen isn't going to put on the hit-and run with Pierzynski and Quentin on the bases with none out.

The Indians would have tied the game in the bottom of the fifth if Brantley hadn't been running from first to bring Beckham into position to catch a line drive up the middle with runners on first and second and two outs. Stuff happens.

The triple play didn't help, but it isn't the reason the Sox lost Sunday.

Domeshot17
04-03-2011, 11:03 PM
I thought Ramirez's bunting had improved in 2009. And I see he had 13 plate appearances and picked up 3 hits and 6 sacrifices. I'm guessing at least 1 or 2 of the hits were probably intended sacrifices. Last year, he had 17 bunts and picked up 5 hits and 7 sacrifices. That doesn't include appearances where the bunt has been taken off with 1 or 2 strikes, but it isn't like asking Ramirez to bunt is asking him to do something he can't do.

The Sox couldn't do anything with Masterson, and they were mostly grounding out routinely. They needed to stay out of the double play to extend the lead. Guillen isn't going to put on the hit-and run with Pierzynski and Quentin on the bases with none out.

The Indians would have tied the game in the bottom of the fifth if Brantley hadn't been running from first to bring Beckham into position to catch a line drive up the middle with runners on first and second and two outs. Stuff happens.

The triple play didn't help, but it isn't the reason the Sox lost Sunday.

Those numbers horribly skewed because they don't take the bunt being taken off after 2 strikes. Alexei is a very sub par bunter. On top of that, you are moving over the runners for a non producer. That is a situation where you have to play for Alexei driving the ball. We are taking the bat our of a strong hitter for a weak hitter.

The game as "lost" because we went to Will Ohman. We go to Ohman because we burn Sergio Santos for 2 innings yesterday in a game that we were way up. So basically, in tight games we need to keep close, we go to a reliever who has never proven anything except they can't be counted on because we burnt our best right hander for 2 innings of meaningless ball the day before.

This isn't little league, this isn't a time when everyone should play. Will Ohman should never to brought in in a 1 run game, ever. Phil Humber should never be brought in to limit the damage.

hawkjt
04-03-2011, 11:18 PM
If you were watching Alexei's swings vs masterson today,you know why Ozzie put the bunt on. Masterson was dotting the outside corner low,and Alexei was hitting it to the shortstop...Ozzie smelled a doubleplay coming so he had Alexei bunt...no brainer,really. Now, Alexei has to embrace that task whole-heartedly or be sat down and talked to...no excuses.

Danks pitched very well. He is a strikeout pitcher,gang,and that means high pitch count....learn to live with it.
He did only make one real mistake,and did not deserve the loss.
6 innings and 2 ER is not a bad outing that he deserves to lose...that is ridiculous. Look around MLB this weekend...pitcher were getting shelled...and not making it out of the 4th inning like Pavano and Liriano.

Masterson was lites out,and is clearly the type of pitcher that the sox struggle against....relax folks.

TheOldRoman
04-03-2011, 11:23 PM
He's John Danks, not Roy Halladay.I agree, but remember that when Danks is asking for a $100 million contract. He is gone after the 2012 season (if he isn't traded beforehand), and he will be positioned as one of the best young lefties in the game. With the crazy salaries now, he is going to get the $100 million whether he takes the next step or not. Either way, asking Danks to give the team 7 innings isn't out of the question. If we are going to need three good innings out of the bullpen every time he starts, we are going to have some issues.

soltrain21
04-03-2011, 11:45 PM
Can't win them all.

I'm much more concerned with the pen than with any issues concerned with the bunt.

Perfect call and not the best execution considering these guys worked on bunting a few weeks ago. Besides, their 1B made a great play.

Hopefully we can see someone step up in the pen other than our closer and two setup guys or make cuts and bring back Bruney and Infante or someone else if they can't hack it.

A perfect call? Cmon, man. The team has scored 23 runs in the last two days and you have your Silver Slugger from last year who sucks at bunting trying to bunt guys over in the 4th inning?

If by perfect you mean terrible, sure.

JB98
04-04-2011, 12:19 AM
I am disappointed in the loss because I believe the Sox beat themselves. Masterson was getting ready to crap his jammies in that fourth inning. A leadoff walk to Quentin, followed by a solid single by Pierzynski. And then the Sox gave him three outs. Just gave him three outs needlessly.

First off, I don't like the bunt in that situation. It's my belief that when a team is going good -- and the Sox swung the bats well the first two games of this series -- a manager doesn't need to insert himself into the game. If the guys are playing well, just let 'em play for crying out loud. No need to put a play on there whatsoever. Ramirez is a better RBI man than the two players hitting directly behind him (Vizquel and Pierre). Let him swing the bat and try to knock in those runners.

Of course, if the bunt gets executed, maybe the Sox score a run or two in that inning. Then Danks can afford to make a mistake to Cabrera in the sixth. If the game is tied or the Sox are ahead going into the seventh, the bullpen probably gets used differently. Maybe it's a whole different game.

But the execution on that bunt play was about the only thing worse than the decision to put the bunt on in the first place. It was all kinds of awful and it cost the Sox the game, IMO.

Foulke You
04-04-2011, 12:24 AM
Masterson was dotting the outside corner low,and Alexei was hitting it to the shortstop...Ozzie smelled a doubleplay coming so he had Alexei bunt...no brainer,really.
I'm not "anti bunting" but there is a time and a place for it and I thought that was way too early in the game with the wrong guy at the plate. Also, with the infield already drawn in to protect against a bunt, a hard hit grounder could have likely gotten through for a hit. Vizquel or Pierre at the plate can get that type of bunt down but not Alexei. I've seen him fail too many times at it to ever comfortably call for him to bunt in that situation. Ozzie used to do the same thing with Juan Uribe who was another slugging shortstop of ours who happened to be a bad bunter.

I also think we are too predictable with our bunts. After the feeble first attempt, the bunt should have been taken off because the Tribe infield took a few steps further in knowing the bunt was coming. However, we NEVER take the bunt sign off unless it gets to 2 strikes (sometimes not even then). How many times in the past couple years have we seen our hitters bunt right into a charging 3B only to have the lead runner thrown out anyway because they are practically standing on home plate waiting for the ball?

TDog
04-04-2011, 12:27 AM
Those numbers horribly skewed because they don't take the bunt being taken off after 2 strikes. Alexei is a very sub par bunter. On top of that, you are moving over the runners for a non producer. That is a situation where you have to play for Alexei driving the ball. We are taking the bat our of a strong hitter for a weak hitter.

The game as "lost" because we went to Will Ohman. We go to Ohman because we burn Sergio Santos for 2 innings yesterday in a game that we were way up. So basically, in tight games we need to keep close, we go to a reliever who has never proven anything except they can't be counted on because we burnt our best right hander for 2 innings of meaningless ball the day before.

This isn't little league, this isn't a time when everyone should play. Will Ohman should never to brought in in a 1 run game, ever. Phil Humber should never be brought in to limit the damage.

The game was lost because Danks couldn't protect a one-run lead with two outs and none on in the sixth on a day when the Sox couldn't hit Masterson. If Danks could have gone deeper into the game or if the Sox had a deeper bullpen, Ohman and Humber wouldn't have had to come into the game. You can't pitch Sale every day. If you designate Thornton as your closer, you can't bring him in to pitch in the seventh when your team is losing.

Hawkjt is right. Ramirez was bunting because Masterson was getting Sox hitters to hit routine ground balls to infielders. The Sox needed to stay out of the doubleplay The most dangerous hitter in the lineup for the Sox today, the only hitter to get two hits, was Vizquel, who was on deck.

doublem23
04-04-2011, 12:45 AM
Having 2 hits in one game does not make Omar Vizquel the most dangerous hitter in the lineup.

WhiteSox5187
04-04-2011, 01:11 AM
Having 2 hits in one game does not make Omar Vizquel the most dangerous hitter in the lineup.

No, but he seldom strikes out and puts the ball in play, the next two guys coming up put the ball in play a lot and if Alexei gets down the bunt, the odds are very good you are going to get at least one run.

BainesHOF
04-04-2011, 01:29 AM
Anyone who would bunt Ramirez in that situation doesn't have a good understanding of baseball. It's disappointing that we have a veteran manager who made that call.

It comes down to simple percentages. It's late and I'm tired so I'm not going to look everything up and break it down, but the mathematical chance of scoring in that inning was greater letting Alexei and the following hitters swing away than it was for Alexei trying to sacrifice and then driving in the run from third after that. It's maddening to see our manager call for the option that gave Cleveland its best chance to succeed.

We have a good team this season that has a chance to be very good. But we're not good enough to overcome this B.S. if it continues on such a level.

One of the many great things about watching the Bulls this season has been the coaching of Thibodeau. He's not perfect and of course nobody is, but he's a terrific coach. And one of the many great things about him is he doesn't do ridiculous things like Guillen and Lovie Smith tend to do with regularity. As a fan, the frustration-with-the-coach factor is virtually non-existent with Thibodeau. It's too bad the same isn't true with Guillen.

Madvora
04-04-2011, 07:31 AM
If the bunt succeeded, then it would have been the right call, if it fails, then it's the wrong call.
I'm fine with the idea of the bunt in that situation, but after Alexei's ridiculous first attempt, Ozzie should have changed the strategy. It was obvious that he wasn't going to get a bunt down poking at it like that. Let him swing away then work on teaching him bunting after the game, not during it.

asindc
04-04-2011, 08:17 AM
Boy, I'll tell you what, that Justin Masterson just dominated. You gotta watch out for him. One of these years he will put it all together and have a WHIP under 1.4.

Yeah, it's not like they were facing Matt Harrison, for instance.

soltrain21
04-04-2011, 09:03 AM
No, but he seldom strikes out and puts the ball in play, the next two guys coming up put the ball in play a lot and if Alexei gets down the bunt, the odds are very good you are going to get at least one run.

We had two on with no outs. Why are we playing for one run in the 4th inning against a team we mashed against the last two days?

Jerko
04-04-2011, 09:12 AM
The bunt looks like a good call if executed properly.
Always give a pitcher and defense something else to worry about.

The Pirates asked Lyle frigging Overbay to bunt with runners on today.
He executed, despite being a historically bad bunter. They won as a result.
If he didn't execute, people would wonder why the bat was taken out of his hands.

Regardless, decent series. We will take 2-1 all year long.
This middle relief situation has to improve.

Pierre's bunt was executed properly the VERY NEXT inning and they didn't score that inning either. 4 baserunners, 2 bunts, no runs. Don't need to be playing for one run in the 4th inning IMO.

doublem23
04-04-2011, 09:18 AM
Pierre's bunt was executed properly the VERY NEXT inning and they didn't score that inning either. 4 baserunners, 2 bunts, no runs. Don't need to be playing for one run in the 4th inning IMO.

Yeah, it almost feels like a panic move, to be bunting that often that early in the game, I know Masterson was pitching well and historically has our number, but I'd just rather these guys go down swinging and not bunting. We scored 23 runs in the 1st two games, this lineup is dangerous top to bottom, I don't like taking that bat out of guys' hands.

Obviously there are situations when the bunt is the right call, but a bad bunter, 1st two runners on in the inning, early in the game, and up 1, I think you roll the dice and play for the big inning. If nothing else, make him earn those outs, don't give them away for free.

aryzner
04-04-2011, 10:57 AM
In my opinion, bunting was the wrong move for Alexei regardless of the outcome.

PorkChopExpress
04-04-2011, 11:29 AM
Yeah, it almost feels like a panic move, to be bunting that often that early in the game, I know Masterson was pitching well and historically has our number, but I'd just rather these guys go down swinging and not bunting. We scored 23 runs in the 1st two games, this lineup is dangerous top to bottom, I don't like taking that bat out of guys' hands.

Obviously there are situations when the bunt is the right call, but a bad bunter, 1st two runners on in the inning, early in the game, and up 1, I think you roll the dice and play for the big inning. If nothing else, make him earn those outs, don't give them away for free.


This. Plus, everyone knows it's coming because Ozzie is so predictable so they can pitch to it and field appropriately. If Santana had to play back a little more just in case Alexei was swinging, he does not make that catch. But he knows, as does everyone in the stadium, that the bunt is coming so he can cheat up a little bit and get close enough to make the catch.

VMSNS
04-04-2011, 12:02 PM
I've only been able to watch bits and pieces of this first series (unfortunately), but I think this question needs to be asked: Just how bad is Will Ohman? Anyone else get the feeling that he's going to be Ozzie's new toy, like Kotsay or Wise?

downstairs
04-04-2011, 12:22 PM
Thornton is a 34 year old vet. If this outing had any effect on his confidence, he has no business being the closer in the first place.

Who hadn't seen any action at all in the series. No problems giving him an inning of work.

pudge
04-04-2011, 01:47 PM
I did not agree with ONE move Ozzie made today. The bunting MUST stop so early in games. The last two games we have had bunts absolutely ruin rallies. And you know who were the on-deck hitters in those situations? Juan Pierre and Omar Vizquel!! Not exactly your sacrifice fly candidates. Bringing in Ohman was raising a white flag. And then Thornton just to ruin his confidence? I guess our streak of never completing sweeps will continue. :angry:

It's never going to stop. Bunts have been killing this team for years, he's never going to change his ways.

kufram
04-04-2011, 03:48 PM
I did not agree with ONE move Ozzie made today. The bunting MUST stop so early in games. The last two games we have had bunts absolutely ruin rallies. And you know who were the on-deck hitters in those situations? Juan Pierre and Omar Vizquel!! Not exactly your sacrifice fly candidates. Bringing in Ohman was raising a white flag. And then Thornton just to ruin his confidence? I guess our streak of never completing sweeps will continue. :angry:

I would say it was the failure to execute the bunt that ruined the "rally" not the bunt call itself. Pierre and Vizquel are not sacrifice fly candidates, maybe... but they can both handle a bat and get the ball in play.

The idea was to maybe get a grounder (every out until then was a ground ball, i believe) that would score the man from third. That really is NOT bad baseball management. People might not like it because it was the 4th inning but it was a reasonable situational management decision. We were not getting anything off the pitcher BUT ground balls... why would anyone assume we'd suddenly get a fly ball deep enough or a hit to score anybody. Bad execution and a pretty great catch ruined it.

Ozzie ain't the greatest game manager but this was not really a bad call for the situation.

DirtySox
04-04-2011, 03:57 PM
Ozzie ain't the greatest game manager but this was not really a bad call for the situation.

It's a bad call in that Alexei is by no means a reliable bunter.

It's also a bad call because Omar Vizquel and Juan Pierre were the following batters.

It's also also a bad call because the probability of scoring is greater when having a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs, versus men on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out.

Nellie_Fox
04-04-2011, 04:22 PM
It's also also a bad call because the probability of scoring is greater when having a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs, versus men on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out.
Misuse of statistics. This is a general, un-analyzed, raw data conclusion. It is not analyzed by who the runners are, who the hitter is, who the pitcher is, and any number of other factors that could move the result. You have no idea whether it is "generalizable" to all situations or not.

doublem23
04-04-2011, 05:03 PM
Misuse of statistics. This is a general, un-analyzed, raw data conclusion. It is not analyzed by who the runners are, who the hitter is, who the pitcher is, and any number of other factors that could move the result. You have no idea whether it is "generalizable" to all situations or not.

That still doesn't change the fact that in the history of recorded baseball, teams score more runs more often with runners on 1st and 2nd and no out than they do with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. You can nitpick that all you want to defend the beloved, grindy bunt, but that's a situation where you are rolling against the odds.

manders_01
04-04-2011, 05:34 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that in the history of recorded baseball, teams score more runs more often with runners on 1st and 2nd and no out than they do with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. You can nitpick that all you want to defend the beloved, grindy bunt, but that's a situation where you are rolling against the odds.

Except for that wasn't the situation. It was before there was a batter but that couldn't have been the outcome after the batter. My hunch, and that of others per their posts, is that the bunt was called to prevent the DP. Men on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out is better than a man on 3rd or 1st with 2 outs.

Nellie_Fox
04-04-2011, 05:46 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that in the history of recorded baseball, teams score more runs more often with runners on 1st and 2nd and no out than they do with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. You can nitpick that all you want to defend the beloved, grindy bunt, but that's a situation where you are rolling against the odds.See, this is why I am getting to where I don't want to post anymore. I didn't "defend the beloved, grindy bunt." I merely pointed out that the fact that ON AVERAGE something happens more often than another outcome is not reason to totally abandon an approach, because there can be other factors involved that have not been controlled for. It is entirely possible that, in a given ballpark, it is successful more often than not and still fail more often than not across all of baseball. That's just one example of the things that aren't controlled for. It's un-analyzed, raw data.

Gavin
04-04-2011, 06:07 PM
See, this is why I am getting to where I don't want to post anymore. I didn't "defend the beloved, grindy bunt." I merely pointed out that the fact that ON AVERAGE something happens more often than another outcome is not reason to totally abandon an approach, because there can be other factors involved that have not been controlled for. It is entirely possible that, in a given ballpark, it is successful more often than not and still fail more often than not across all of baseball. That's just one example of the things that aren't controlled for. It's un-analyzed, raw data.

I'm pretty sure you can control for all of the things you claim cannot be controlled for. Unless you are suggesting that attributes like baserunning or bunting ability can't be judged. If so, what's the point of scouting?

russ99
04-04-2011, 06:09 PM
See, this is why I am getting to where I don't want to post anymore. I didn't "defend the beloved, grindy bunt." I merely pointed out that the fact that ON AVERAGE something happens more often than another outcome is not reason to totally abandon an approach, because there can be other factors involved that have not been controlled for. It is entirely possible that, in a given ballpark, it is successful more often than not and still fail more often than not across all of baseball. That's just one example of the things that aren't controlled for. It's un-analyzed, raw data.

Some people hate the bunt in general, but you have to take the hitter and situation into account.

Was it more possible that Alexei is his usual free-swinging self and fooled on Masterson's breaking pitches that were working well? Or he could have pounded one into the ground swinging for the fences and GIDP?

The manager calls it as he sees it in a given situation. This time he thought it would be better to move up the runners for the contact hitters in Vizquel and Pierre.

We're not going to bash out 15 runs every day, you've got to get runs across those days when it's not happening.

soltrain21
04-04-2011, 06:15 PM
Some people hate the bunt in general, but you have to take the hitter and situation into account.

Was it more possible that Alexei is his usual free-swinging self and fooled on Masterson's breaking pitches that were working well? Or he could have pounded one into the ground swinging for the fences and GIDP?

The manager calls it as he sees it in a given situation. This time he thought it would be better to move up the runners for the contact hitters in Vizquel and Pierre.

We're not going to bash out 15 runs every day, you've got to get runs across those days when it's not happening.

Having someone bunt who historically can't get a sacrifice bunt down isn't going to get you any runs across the plate.

doublem23
04-04-2011, 06:30 PM
Except for that wasn't the situation. It was before there was a batter but that couldn't have been the outcome after the batter. My hunch, and that of others per their posts, is that the bunt was called to prevent the DP. Men on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out is better than a man on 3rd or 1st with 2 outs.

The situation when Alexei stepped to the plate was a runner on 1st and 2nd, no out. The ideal situation, if he could get that bunt down was runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out.

It is a statistical fact that 12-, 0 out > -23, 1 out.

A. Cavatica
04-04-2011, 07:45 PM
Ramirez was bunting because Masterson was getting Sox hitters to hit routine ground balls to infielders. The Sox needed to stay out of the doubleplay

Well, then...mission accomplished!

manders_01
04-04-2011, 08:20 PM
The situation when Alexei stepped to the plate was a runner on 1st and 2nd, no out. The ideal situation, if he could get that bunt down was runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out.

It is a statistical fact that 12-, 0 out > -23, 1 out.

You're not getting it. You are comparing base runners and outs before the batter completed his at bat to base runners and outs after his at bat. To be accurate, you should be comparing all the other possibilities when the batter has completed his at bat to the actual outcome. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges. There has to be some outcome to the at bat and cannot be runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs and the same amount of runs.

SephClone89
04-04-2011, 08:24 PM
You're not getting it. You are comparing base runners and outs before the batter completed his at bat to base runners and outs after his at bat. To be accurate, you should be comparing all the other possibilities when the batter has completed his at bat to the actual outcome. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges. There has to be some outcome to the at bat and cannot be runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs and the same amount of runs.

Your posts have been really confusing me, but from what I can tell...you're the one who's not getting it.

manders_01
04-04-2011, 08:39 PM
Your posts have been really confusing me, but from what I can tell...you're the one who's not getting it.

Maybe I don't get it. What I've read is that having runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs is better than having runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. While I agree this is true, it's a comparison that doesn't reflect the actual situation. One of them is "what was" the case prior to the at bat, the other is a "what could be" if the bunt had been successful. I don't think comparing "what was" and "what could be" is a fair assessment. The comparison should be between all the "what could be" options only. The "what was" doesn't matter anymore because it's not one of those options.

SephClone89
04-04-2011, 08:42 PM
Maybe I don't get it. What I've read is that having runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs is better than having runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. While I agree this is true, it's a comparison that doesn't reflect the actual situation. One of them is what was the case prior to the at bat, the other is what could have been if the bunt had been successful. I don't think comparing what was and what could be is a fair assessment. The comparison should be between all the what could be options only. The what was doesn't matter anymore because it's not one of those options.

The argument is that even if the bunt is successful, you've decreased your likelihood of scoring, and you'd have been better off not even attempting to bunt. Add in the fact that a botched bunt can lead to something as disastrous as what happened yesterday, and you have a pretty convincing case against the sacrifice bunt.

Domeshot17
04-04-2011, 09:52 PM
Having someone bunt who historically can't get a sacrifice bunt down isn't going to get you any runs across the plate.

Ehhh, Ozzie could tell the entire Sox team to hold the bats upside down and try and hit with the handles, and some posters would defend it as brilliant.

The bottom line, bunting with an RBI producer who is a ****ty bunter to move runners over for 2 guys who combined wont drive in 80 runs this year is not good baseball if it isn't the 9th inning.

SephClone89
04-04-2011, 10:03 PM
The bottom line, bunting with an RBI producer who is a ****ty bunter to move runners over for 2 guys who combined wont drive in 80 runs this year is not good baseball if it isn't the 9th inning.

...Yeah, that's actually the perfect way to encapsulate all of this.

Nellie_Fox
04-04-2011, 11:49 PM
I'm pretty sure you can control for all of the things you claim cannot be controlled for. Unless you are suggesting that attributes like baserunning or bunting ability can't be judged. If so, what's the point of scouting?
And again, I've been assigned a position I did not take. Nowhere did I say it CANNOT be controlled for, I said it HASN'T been controlled for. Huge difference.

But everybody go on insisting that you should never bunt with runners on first and second with nobody out because the RAW, UN-ANALYZED DATA says you are less likely to score. All I'm arguing is, if you were to do some genuine analysis, controlling for some other variables, you might well find some situations where advancing the runners makes you MORE likely to score. I don't know, but neither do you, because it apparently hasn't been done. With the dichotomous outcome variable, logistic regression might be a good tool.

manders_01
04-05-2011, 12:44 AM
The argument is that even if the bunt is successful, you've decreased your likelihood of scoring, and you'd have been better off not even attempting to bunt. Add in the fact that a botched bunt can lead to something as disastrous as what happened yesterday, and you have a pretty convincing case against the sacrifice bunt.

I guess I really don't get it then because I don't understand why having players on 1st and 2nd with no outs is being used in the argument. Even if the bunt is not attempted, some sort of action needs to be taken. The comparison should be against that action, not the men standing on 1st and 2nd with no outs.

doublem23
04-05-2011, 04:31 AM
I guess I really don't get it then because I don't understand why having players on 1st and 2nd with no outs is being used in the argument. Even if the bunt is not attempted, some sort of action needs to be taken. The comparison should be against that action, not the men standing on 1st and 2nd with no outs.

We're using the 12-, 0 out as the comparison because that was the actual situation the Sox found themselves in. You're right, something had to happen during Alexei's at bat, the point was going from the situation the Sox were in to going to -23, 1 out (the desired consequence of Alexei's AB) actually lowers the statistical likelihood the Sox would score in the inning, so why would the Sox deliberately do it?

kufram
04-05-2011, 09:52 AM
Stats are good and probable outcomes are good when looking at a large sample of situations. When looking at one single situation actuaries and underwriters will tell you that the odds aren't a lot of good.

If stats could actually predict what WILL happen, like some people seem to believe, then it would be much better to have a computer in the dugout crunching the calls. I'm not a fan of Ozzie. I particularly object to his profanity... and I'm no saint, believe me. But he is the manager and he should make the calls until he is no longer the manager.

I, personally, have no problem with that call even in the 4th and knowing that TCM is not a good bunter. Still, he should be able to get one to the ground. THAT, to me, is the issue. What are the chances that he would pop 2 in a row up to the same spot and a catcher playing first base would make a great play?

Ok, it didn't work out. Get over it. A whole bunch of very good hitters hit nothing but ground balls all game and Danks gave up a homer. That's baseball.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-05-2011, 10:01 AM
Stats are good and probable outcomes are good when looking at a large sample of situations. When looking at one single situation actuaries and underwriters will tell you that the odds aren't a lot of good.

If stats could actually predict what WILL happen, like some people seem to believe, then it would be much better to have a computer in the dugout crunching the calls. I'm not a fan of Ozzie. I particularly object to his profanity... and I'm no saint, believe me. But he is the manager and he should make the calls until he is no longer the manager.

I, personally, have no problem with that call even in the 4th and knowing that TCM is not a good bunter. Still, he should be able to get one to the ground. THAT, to me, is the issue. What are the chances that he would pop 2 in a row up to the same spot and a catcher playing first base would make a great play?

Ok, it didn't work out. Get over it. A whole bunch of very good hitters hit nothing but ground balls all game and Danks gave up a homer. That's baseball.


Ozzie and his followers around here seem to assume that the bunt has a 100% chance of success. Even if the best bunter in the whole wide world is at the plate, you still have to factor in the % chance that it might not work into the decision making process. As the skill of the bunter decreases, the likelihood of success decreases and it becomes a progressively worse call. Additionally, the more proficient the hitter the worse the call becomes. The call to bunt also becomes more questionable the earlier it is in the game because your knowledge of how many runs you are likely to need is limited.

These are basic concepts, the fact that Ozzie is making the decisions doesn't change them.

MisterB
04-05-2011, 10:20 AM
Sorry, Doub, but your argument is statistically wrong.

Check the second chart on this page (http://tangotiger.net/re24.html).

Historically, the chance of scoring any runs with runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs: 64.3%
The chance of scoring any runs with runners on 2nd & 3rd with one out: 69.8%

The difference is the bunt reduces the chance of the "big inning". And (according to the first chart on that page) it reduces the average amount of runs scored by roughly one tenth of a run. (1.556 vs. 1.447)

kufram
04-05-2011, 10:57 AM
Ozzie and his followers around here seem to assume that the bunt has a 100% chance of success. Even if the best bunter in the whole wide world is at the plate, you still have to factor in the % chance that it might not work into the decision making process. As the skill of the bunter decreases, the likelihood of success decreases and it becomes a progressively worse call. Additionally, the more proficient the hitter the worse the call becomes. The call to bunt also becomes more questionable the earlier it is in the game because your knowledge of how many runs you are likely to need is limited.

These are basic concepts, the fact that Ozzie is making the decisions doesn't change them.

Yes, but what we know for sure is that every out up to that point had been a ground out. It had all the hallmarks of a pitchers duel and 1 run looked pretty big at that point.... and rain was a real possibility. It's kind of silly to say I think the bunt has 100% success rate. I just know from experience that management calls, in baseball or business for that matter, are easy to pick apart after the fact and from the comfort of the computer desk.

Nellie_Fox
04-05-2011, 11:02 AM
Ozzie and his followers around here seem to assume that the bunt has a 100% chance of success.And here we have another internet straw-man argument. Nobody has said anything remotely similar to this anywhere in this thread. Why do people try to "win" discussions by grossly overstating the position of the other side and then making fun of that?

asindc
04-05-2011, 11:12 AM
Sorry, Doub, but your argument is statistically wrong.

Check the second chart on this page (http://tangotiger.net/re24.html).

Historically, the chance of scoring any runs with runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs: 64.3%
The chance of scoring any runs with runners on 2nd & 3rd with one out: 69.8%

The difference is the bunt reduces the chance of the "big inning". And (according to the first chart on that page) it reduces the average amount of runs scored by roughly one tenth of a run. (1.556 vs. 1.447)

IMO, it really comes down to the likelihood of the Sox scoring if the bunt had been successful versus the likelihood of the Sox scoring if Alexei had been instructed to take his normal approach to hitting. Among the factors I would consider is Alexei's ability to bunt and his career OBP (.320). I would further consider his career OBP versus Masterson (don't know it) and how well he was hitting at the time. Lots to consider, in other words.

More than anything else, I find it somewhat surprising that some people seem to think we lost a 1-7 game primarily because of a failed bunt attempt in the 4th inning.

asindc
04-05-2011, 11:14 AM
And here we have another internet straw-man argument. Nobody has said anything remotely similar to this anywhere in this thread. Why do people try to "win" discussions by grossly overstating the position of the other side and then making fun of that?

I know your question is rhetorical, but maybe it's because the counter-argument does not withstand scrutiny if it is confined to addressing the points actually made.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-05-2011, 11:16 AM
Yes, but what we know for sure is that every out up to that point had been a ground out. It had all the hallmarks of a pitchers duel and 1 run looked pretty big at that point.... and rain was a real possibility. It's kind of silly to say I think the bunt has 100% success rate. I just know from experience that management calls, in baseball or business for that matter, are easy to pick apart after the fact and from the comfort of the computer desk.

1) That's a very good point. While I still disagree with the call, based on that logic I can see the merits of bunting in that situation. I'll admit that I'm now biased against most bunt calls by Ozzie before the 8th inning because he does it way too often for my liking. The first time Beckham bunts Pierre over to second this year, my head may explode.

2) Meh. I never played professional baseball either.

Jerko
04-05-2011, 11:16 AM
Here is the stat I look at: Ozzie knows Ramirez can't bunt. After he ****ed up that first attempt, that should have been it, especially with the infielders coming in even more. If you're so scared of the DP start the ****in runners. It was the 4th inning; I don't want to hear how dominant Masterson was at the time, because AT that time, he had 2 on and nobody out. He gave up 2 more runners the next inning. Sox bunted into 4 of those 6 outs. But, if Alexei swung away and even homered, they still could have lost 7-4. Technically it didn't cost them the game, but it didn't help any either. Even the bunt that worked resulted in no runs. I just don't like giving away outs.

soltrain21
04-05-2011, 11:16 AM
IMO, it really comes down to the likelihood of the Sox scoring if the bunt had been successful versus the likelihood of the Sox scoring if Alexei had been instructed to take his normal approach to hitting. Among the factors I would consider is Alexei's ability to bunt and his career OBP (.320). I would further consider his career OBP versus Masterson (don't know it) and how well he was hitting at the time. Lots to consider, in other words.

More than anything else, I find it somewhat surprising that some people seem to think we lost a 1-7 game primarily because of a failed bunt attempt in the 4th inning.

Are you for real with this? That completely changes the game. Say the Sox go on to score 3-4 runs that inning. You don't think that changes the outlook of the game? Cmon. We take a big lead and we probably don't see Will Ohman. We went from threatening a big inning to getting no runs on a triple play. I'd say that was the most important thing that happened in the game.

It completely changed the game.

asindc
04-05-2011, 11:22 AM
Are you for real with this? That completely changes the game. Say the Sox go on to score 3-4 runs that inning. You don't think that changes the outlook of the game? Cmon. We take a big lead and we probably don't see Will Ohman. We went from threatening a big inning to getting no runs on a triple play. I'd say that was the most important thing that happened in the game.

It completely changed the game.

You are assuming quite a bit with that statement.

hawkjt
04-05-2011, 11:22 AM
And the next time up,Alexei hit a perfect doubleplay grounder to the ss against Masterson. Alexei just was not going to hit the guy as he dotted the outside corner at the knees...Ozzie knows his players and the situation.

soltrain21
04-05-2011, 11:29 AM
You are assuming quite a bit with that statement.

Did you miss the part where I said "say the Sox score 3-4 runs that inning." ...?

To act like scoring runs instead of hitting into a triple play doesn't change the outlook of the game is well, not right.

asindc
04-05-2011, 11:33 AM
Did you miss the part where I said "say the Sox score 3-4 runs that inning." ...?

To act like scoring runs instead of hitting into a triple play doesn't change the outlook of the game is well, not right.

I certainly did not miss that part, just like I did not miss your statement above in which you talk as if scoring runs that inning was a given if not for the bunt.

soltrain21
04-05-2011, 11:36 AM
I certainly did not miss that part, just like I did not miss your statement above in which you talk as if scoring runs that inning was a given if not for the bunt.

When have I said, for sure, they were going to score runs that inning? I'm going against your argument that the failed bunt in the 4th inning didn't have anything to do with us losing 7-1. When, in fact, it very much did.

asindc
04-05-2011, 11:51 AM
When have I said, for sure, they were going to score runs that inning? I'm going against your argument that the failed bunt in the 4th inning didn't have anything to do with us losing 7-1. When, in fact, it very much did.

Never said that.

kufram
04-05-2011, 12:10 PM
1) That's a very good point. While I still disagree with the call, based on that logic I can see the merits of bunting in that situation. I'll admit that I'm now biased against most bunt calls by Ozzie before the 8th inning because he does it way too often for my liking. The first time Beckham bunts Pierre over to second this year, my head may explode.

2) Meh. I never played professional baseball either.

I agree that Ozzie bunts too early too often (just not necessarily this time) and a big reason is the fact that so many White Sox hitters simply do not know how to bunt. I don't understand how players can get to the majors and not know how to bunt. I found it very easy to bunt (no, not professional but organized) so I'm biased. It can be very useful if fielders think you just might lay one down.

Beckham should not bunt Pierre to 2nd except late in a tie game with no outs. Even then it's not the first choice.

JB98
04-05-2011, 12:59 PM
I agree that Ozzie bunts too early too often (just not necessarily this time) and a big reason is the fact that so many White Sox hitters simply do not know how to bunt. I don't understand how players can get to the majors and not know how to bunt. I found it very easy to bunt (no, not professional but organized) so I'm biased. It can be very useful if fielders think you just might lay one down.

Beckham should not bunt Pierre to 2nd except late in a tie game with no outs. Even then it's not the first choice.

That's an easy one. Most MLB players batted in the middle of the order on their respective high school/college/minor league teams. Most of them were big run producers at lower levels, and accordingly, were never asked to bunt in critical situations. You can work on it on the practice field all you want, but it's different in a game. Some guys can do it, some guys can't.

Bunting is a skill, just like fielding a ground ball or turning a double play. Some guys do it better than others. I was a good bunter when I played in my younger years, largely because I was a horse**** hitter and was often asked to lay one down in game situations. I had plenty of practice bunting against live pitching. In contrast, the men playing in MLB were not horse**** at lower levels, so they got to swing away. As a result, many of them are not accomplished bunters -- because they don't have much experience with it in spite of their status as MLB players.

TDog
04-05-2011, 01:19 PM
See, this is why I am getting to where I don't want to post anymore. I didn't "defend the beloved, grindy bunt." I merely pointed out that the fact that ON AVERAGE something happens more often than another outcome is not reason to totally abandon an approach, because there can be other factors involved that have not been controlled for. It is entirely possible that, in a given ballpark, it is successful more often than not and still fail more often than not across all of baseball. That's just one example of the things that aren't controlled for. It's un-analyzed, raw data.

I agree. I haven't looked at this thread for a day for pretty much the same reason. I started out by writing that I wouldn't have bunted there if I were managing. Having read Percentage Baseball by Earnshaw Cook, I lack the reflex that would call for the bunt. But I believe a strong argument could be made for bunting there. Certainly,if you analyzed every situation individually, you could make a strong argument for bunting with Ramirez up with a 1-0 lead and two on and none out against Masterson.

Raw data will tell you the chances of a runner scoring from second with none out are better than the chances of a runner scoring from third with one out. But raw data doesn't account for the way Ramirez, and all of the right-handed hitters, were hitting Masterson on Sunday. All nine previous outs were groundouts. The only two hits by right-handed hitters were on the ground. The only hits by right-handed hitters came on ground balls. it wasn't like you were bunting with a hitter who could be counted on to double and spark a four-run rally.

Vizquel had hit the ball over the infield. If you had runners on second and third, even a ground ball would probably get the run in, because the Indians wouldn't be playing the infield in with two runners in scoring position in the fourth inning, especially after his first at bat. If Vizquel doesn't get the run home and end the inning, you still you have another left-handed hitter on deck.

In that situation, bunting with Ramirez might be the percentage move. According to Jeff Cox, Ramirez had never bunted in his life before coming to the White Sox, but he has worked on bunting and has 17 successful sacrifice bunts in his career. Even if you go by raw data that ignores the game situation, the chances of Ramirez hitting into a double play are less if he is bunting. The chances of Ramirez hitting into a triple play are diminished if he is bunting. It wasn't like the chances of Ramirez hitting into a triple play dropped from 28 to 17 percent by bunting. What happened involved the sort of percentages that might be expressed in scientific notation.

You can argue that the bunt is a losing proposition because it ignores percentages, but what happened defied percentages. Even if you're playing with those raw-data overall percentages and you want Vizquel to come up with one out and at least one runner in scoring position, you are better off bunting than swinging away. Obviously that was the situation Guillen was managing for.

Tragg
04-05-2011, 03:55 PM
Yes, bunting MIGHT improve a team's chances of scoring ONE run. There's no way this team should have played for one run in those circumstances or in most circumstances.
There were two asinine bunts on Sunday, but only 1 resulted in a triple play. The other one, the 9 hole hitter gets on base, and he bunts the top of the order to intentionally make outs in front of Beckham, Dunn, Quentin and Konerko.

russ99
04-05-2011, 04:25 PM
The other one, the 9 hole hitter gets on base, and he bunts the top of the order to intentionally make outs in front of Beckham, Dunn, Quentin and Konerko.

And if our run-producers can't drive him in, it's more on them.

The crux is those run producers didn't execute. We didn't score with the bunt in that situation but considering the results, we probably wouldn't have scored without the bunt either.